IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/ipmsls/v44y20231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Pilat

Abstract

This article reviews the recent analytical work and policy recommendations of eleven national productivity commissions, i.e. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. It finds several differences between the commissions as regards institutional set-up, composition, and degree of independence, amongst others. The commissions have much more in common in their analytical and policy work. This likely reflects common challenges, such as the slowdown in productivity and the COVID-19 crisis, as well as structural trends such as digitalization. It also reflects a shared understanding of the main drivers of productivity, notably investment, human capital, innovation, digitalization and creative destruction, and the policies affecting those drivers. The article also finds some areas that have not yet received much attention from commissions, such as the link between the environment and productivity or the relationship between productivity, wages, and inequality. The rise of productivity commissions across the OECD area provides a rich source of analysis and policy learning that should be drawn on by academics, policy makers and others interested in productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk Pilat, 2023. "The Rise of Pro-Productivity Institutions: A Review of Recent Developments," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 44, pages 3-33, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:sls:ipmsls:v:44:y:2023:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csls.ca/ipm/44/IPM_44_Pilat.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 11-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sean Dougherty & Andrea Renda, 2017. "Pro-Productivity Institutions: Learning from National Experience," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 32, pages 196-217, Spring.
    3. Cárdenas Rodríguez, Miguel & Haščič, Ivan & Souchier, Martin, 2018. "Environmentally Adjusted Multifactor Productivity: Methodology and Empirical Results for OECD and G20 Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 147-160.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qing Li & Long Hai Vo, 2021. "Intangible Capital and Innovation: An Empirical Analysis of Vietnamese Enterprises," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 21-02, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    2. Anmol Bhandari & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2017. "Sweat Equity in U.S. Private Business," Staff Report 560, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    3. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Fernández, Gastón P. & Rammer, Christian, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and firm-level productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 188-205.
    4. De, Supriyo, 2014. "Intangible capital and growth in the ‘new economy’: Implications of a multi-sector endogenous growth model," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 25-42.
    5. Emanuele Giovannetti & Claudio Piga, 2023. "The multifaceted nature of cooperation for innovation, ICT and innovative outcomes: evidence from UK Microdata," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(3), pages 639-666, September.
    6. Lisa Evers & Helen Miller & Christoph Spengel, 2015. "Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 502-530, June.
    7. Edquist, Harald, 2009. "How Much does Sweden Invest in Intangible Assets?," Working Paper Series 785, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Magnus Lodefalk, 2014. "The role of services for manufacturing firm exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(1), pages 59-82, February.
    9. Nikulainen, Tuomo & Pajarinen, Mika, 2013. "Industry restructuring in the ICT sector – What does labor mobility tell us about skill relatedness and knowledge spillovers?," ETLA Working Papers 17, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Haskel, Jonathan & Wallis, Gavin, 2013. "Public support for innovation, intangible investment and productivity growth in the UK market sector," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-198.
    11. Cecilia Jona Lasinio & Stefano Manzocchi & Valentina Meliciani, 2016. "Intangible Assets and Participation in Global Value Chains: An Analysis on a Sample of European Countries," Working Papers LuissLab 16129, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    12. Chiara Criscuolo & Angelo Secchi, 2016. "Resources (mis)allocation, innovation and the competitiveness of Europe," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(1), pages 1-9, March.
    13. HERRERO-OLARTE, Susana, 2024. "Productivity And Regional Trade, The Relationship In South America," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 24(1), pages 37-56.
    14. Matthias Kehrig & Nicolas Vincent, 2017. "Growing Productivity without Growing Wages: The Micro-Level Anatomy of the Aggregate Labor Share Decline," CESifo Working Paper Series 6454, CESifo.
    15. Robert Inklaar & Marcel P. Timmer, 2012. "Productivity Convergence Across Industries and Countries: The Importance of Theory-based Measurement," Chapters, in: Matilde Mas & Robert Stehrer (ed.), Industrial Productivity in Europe, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Ellen McGrattan, 2012. "Transition to FDI Openness: Reconciling Theory and Evidence," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(4), pages 437-458, October.
    17. Cárdenas Rodríguez, Miguel & Haščič, Ivan & Souchier, Martin, 2018. "Environmentally Adjusted Multifactor Productivity: Methodology and Empirical Results for OECD and G20 Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 147-160.
    18. Leonard I. Nakamura, 2010. "Intangible Assets And National Income Accounting," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 56(s1), pages 135-155, June.
    19. Michel Aglietta, 2008. "Corporate governance and the long-run investor," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 407-427.
    20. Daniel Nepelski & Maciej Sobolewski, 2020. "Estimating investments in General Purpose Technologies. The case of AI Investments in Europe," JRC Research Reports JRC118953, Joint Research Centre.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sls:ipmsls:v:44:y:2023:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CSLS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cslssca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.